4 ms·

There’s plenty of useful information on Wikipedia, but the biggest motivator that drives contributions to its generation and maintenance is the desire to contro

There’s plenty of useful information on Wikipedia, but the biggest motivator that drives contributions to its generation and maintenance is the desire to control information. It creates a system for people to promote their own views as the truth (for whatever reason they have for doing that), and suppress all opposing views. Nearly everybody implicitly understands that this is the nature of the content on Wikipedia, that it is a repository for the biases (whether well informed or not) of the Wikipedia power-editors. Knowledge is incorporated into Wikipedia via a political process, not via merit or rigour (whether or not this process chooses to consider merit or rigour in any particular case). Having your edits included in Wikipedia is a way of exerting power over others, and considering that, it’s not a miracle at that it’s managed to attract an army of passionate contributors. There’s nothing miraculous about people passionately seeking power for themselves.

themitigating 3y ago
"promote their own views as the truth (for whatever reason they have for doing that), and suppress all opposing views. " Not everything is an opinion. For example my physical height is a fact. How many versions of truths are there about it?
- AmericanChopper 3y ago
  The Wikipedia article for Kevin Durant lists him as 6’10”, which is different from the height the NBA lists for him, which is also different from the height that he actually is. So if you want to find an example of a non-controversial fact, you’re going to have to try harder than a persons height. https://www.gq.com/story/nba-player-heights https://www.gq.com/story/nba-player-heights But my point isn’t that all information on Wikipedia is factually incorrect. It contains a lot of useful information. My point is that the process for revolving controversies doesn’t simply focus on facts, or merit, or anything similar to scientific or academic rigour, as it is often influenced more by the politics of the Wikipedia editors social hierarchy.
  - themitigating 3y ago
    If the height is wrong then it's not a fact. The parent was impying that multiple truths exist. Also prove your last statement that a significant amount of Wikipedia editors are influenced by political
    - AmericanChopper 3y ago
      It’s a controversial fact. You try figuring out for yourself how you’re going to prove what Kevin Durant’s height actually is, and report back to us. > prove your last statement that a significant amount of Wikipedia editors are influenced by political https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:4228b090-8900-4a29-baa3-660300cdd283/download_file?file_format=application%2Fpdf&safe_filename=Grisel_2023_Cancelling_disputes_how.pdf&type_of_work=Journal+article https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:4228b090-8900-4a29-baa3-66... > Based on empirical data drawn from a series of interviews and an exhaustive analysis of its cases between 2004 and 2020, this paper examines the ways in which the Arbitration Committee handles conduct-related disputes between editors, and the impact of social capital, summarily defined as the “capital captured through social relations” (Lin 2001, 19), on this process. My empirical material indicates that the Arbitration Committee not only examines the merits of the claims made by the disputants, but also and more crucially facilitates a social contest by considering the position of each disputant within the community of editors. Ultimately, the Arbitration Committee seeks to “cancel” these disputes in order to preserve Wikipedia’s social fabric. Here you go, there’s some empirical evidence that proves it. This describes a _political process_ where controversies are resolved according to the _politics_ of Wikipedia editing. I am not talking strictly about something like democrats vs republicans, or whatever your own narrow view of politics entails, as I suspect you may have presumed.
      - themitigating 3y ago
        First addressing the height: It doesn't matter how hard it is to determine his height, if it's wrong on Wikipedia, or if it's controversial. If the height is incorrect on Wikipedia it's not true or a fact. If two sources have his height and they are different only one is true, which one? No idea but there aren't multiple truths. This line of thought is a way to muddy the difference between opinions and facts. A good opinion is one that is based on factual information, if you can claim there are multiple true but contradictory facts (like his height) it allows you have an opinion that might otherwise be based on nothing or false information. The difference between an opinion and a fact is an opinion can't be falsified[1]. It's possible to find out his height[2], therefore there is only one truth, and other "truths" would turn out to be false. ------- The paper you supplied shows social capital helps with the arbitration committee and talks about some inner circle of people who coordinate. You're right, this does prove your point and I did assume that you were talking about the more common current use of politics. I was too focused on the "facts" part of our discussion and read too quickly. That's my fault.
detrites 3y ago
Agree with everything except "nearly everybody understands". In my experience most people have absolutely no clue, to the point a large chunk of society, if you asked them who writes the content, will answer "wikipedia does!".
komali2 3y ago
Interesting analysis, but almost entirely unsupported. Can you back this up? Let me counter, as someone that's edited wikipedia articles: I have no interest in having power over other people. In fact I actively work against hierarchical power structures, which I find inherently unethical. Many others I've met in the weird niche community of hackers and wikipedia editors share these values. I edit wikipedia articles for a variety of reasons. Off the top of my head: something written was factually incorrect (a date off, a mandarin word mistranslated, etc) and I feel an obsessive desire to make the documentation correct; there was no information on a subject I care about and so I wrote some because I really like documentation; the article on a band hadn't been updated to include their new album so I added it because I like the band and I want to make sure people know about the new album; the article wasn't written clearly enough and I worried about non native english speakers who find it and might misunderstand what was written. I really don't understand either how editing a wikipedia article gives you power over someone. They can just edit it back, or ignore the article. Edit: Thinking on it, I edit wikipedia articles maybe for the same reason I have a freesound.org account I upload my audio recordings to: I just really like having an internet full of useful and interesting stuff for people and contributing to that.
- AmericanChopper 3y ago
  It's quite hard to take this comment in good faith, because the politics of wikipedia community of power editors is well documented and criticised. But since you've decided that out of all the comments in this thread, that my one somehow demands more robust empirical scrutiny, here's an empirical study for your reference [0]. > I really don't understand either how editing a wikipedia article gives you power over someone It is impossible for me to take this comment at face value. I don't believe that it is not immediately obvious to you how exerting editorial control over the 7th most visited site on the internet, a site that is aiming to represent "the sum of all human knowledge", represents a significant source of power to influence society. It's great that you've enjoyed the process of contributing minor edits, and content to niche fields. But you can't ignore the fact that a majority of the content comes from a tiny minority of the userbase, and that their motives demonstrably resolve around a desire to control information in many cases. [0]: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:4228b090-8900-4a29-baa3-660300cdd283/download_file?file_format=application%2Fpdf&safe_filename=Grisel_2023_Cancelling_disputes_how.pdf&type_of_work=Journal+article https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:4228b090-8900-4a29-baa3-66... > Based on empirical data drawn from a series of interviews and an exhaustive analysis of its cases between 2004 and 2020, this paper examines the ways in which the Arbitration Committee handles conduct-related disputes between editors, and the impact of social capital, summarily defined as the “capital captured through social relations” (Lin 2001, 19), on this process. My empirical material indicates that the Arbitration Committee not only examines the merits of the claims made by the disputants, but also and more crucially facilitates a social contest by considering the position of each disputant within the community of editors. Ultimately, the Arbitration Committee seeks to “cancel” these disputes in order to preserve Wikipedia’s social fabric.
bawolff 3y ago
> It creates a system for people to promote their own views as the truth As long as the different groups are on equal footing and there is a fair way to resolve disputes, the invisible hand should guide the article to something fair. I think this has been borne out in practise for the most part.
- AmericanChopper 3y ago
  This view is far too simplistic, and I’m not talking about binary political divisions at all. The point is that the process for resolving content controversies is a political process, as in they are resolved according to (or at least influenced by) the status of the disputing parties within the social hierarchy of Wikipedia editors. There is no “invisible hand” to guide fairness here, and the potential topics of controversy don’t exist along some sort of binary paradigm of potentially opposing views. I also have no idea why you would presume that any controversial topic (let alone all or most of them) would have opposing advocates on equal footing with each other.
- DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
  > I think this has been borne out in practise for the most part. That very much depends on the subject matter. Subjects that are at all politically or socially controversial are very likely to be under the control of one or the other side. If it's a "boring" subject that lots of people are interested in, then the page will probably be fairly balanced.
pphysch 3y ago
This has a lot to do with Wikipedia being designed by a couple of Objectivists. They believe there is one reality that can only be correctly perceived in one way, by Rational Individuals. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia for that worldview, and it excels where there is little disagreement between worldviews. A better Wikipedia would have epistemological relativity as a central mechanic, while simultaneously relaxing the rules on acceptable sources. Implementing that in a way that doesn't compromise UX would be difficult, but it's a technical problem more than anything.

themitigating 3y ago

"promote their own views as the truth (for whatever reason they have for doing that), and suppress all opposing views. " Not everything is an opinion. For example my physical height is a fact. How many versions of truths are there about it?

AmericanChopper 3y ago
The Wikipedia article for Kevin Durant lists him as 6’10”, which is different from the height the NBA lists for him, which is also different from the height that he actually is. So if you want to find an example of a non-controversial fact, you’re going to have to try harder than a persons height. https://www.gq.com/story/nba-player-heights https://www.gq.com/story/nba-player-heights But my point isn’t that all information on Wikipedia is factually incorrect. It contains a lot of useful information. My point is that the process for revolving controversies doesn’t simply focus on facts, or merit, or anything similar to scientific or academic rigour, as it is often influenced more by the politics of the Wikipedia editors social hierarchy.
- themitigating 3y ago
  If the height is wrong then it's not a fact. The parent was impying that multiple truths exist. Also prove your last statement that a significant amount of Wikipedia editors are influenced by political
  - AmericanChopper 3y ago
    It’s a controversial fact. You try figuring out for yourself how you’re going to prove what Kevin Durant’s height actually is, and report back to us. > prove your last statement that a significant amount of Wikipedia editors are influenced by political https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:4228b090-8900-4a29-baa3-660300cdd283/download_file?file_format=application%2Fpdf&safe_filename=Grisel_2023_Cancelling_disputes_how.pdf&type_of_work=Journal+article https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:4228b090-8900-4a29-baa3-66... > Based on empirical data drawn from a series of interviews and an exhaustive analysis of its cases between 2004 and 2020, this paper examines the ways in which the Arbitration Committee handles conduct-related disputes between editors, and the impact of social capital, summarily defined as the “capital captured through social relations” (Lin 2001, 19), on this process. My empirical material indicates that the Arbitration Committee not only examines the merits of the claims made by the disputants, but also and more crucially facilitates a social contest by considering the position of each disputant within the community of editors. Ultimately, the Arbitration Committee seeks to “cancel” these disputes in order to preserve Wikipedia’s social fabric. Here you go, there’s some empirical evidence that proves it. This describes a _political process_ where controversies are resolved according to the _politics_ of Wikipedia editing. I am not talking strictly about something like democrats vs republicans, or whatever your own narrow view of politics entails, as I suspect you may have presumed.
    - themitigating 3y ago
      First addressing the height: It doesn't matter how hard it is to determine his height, if it's wrong on Wikipedia, or if it's controversial. If the height is incorrect on Wikipedia it's not true or a fact. If two sources have his height and they are different only one is true, which one? No idea but there aren't multiple truths. This line of thought is a way to muddy the difference between opinions and facts. A good opinion is one that is based on factual information, if you can claim there are multiple true but contradictory facts (like his height) it allows you have an opinion that might otherwise be based on nothing or false information. The difference between an opinion and a fact is an opinion can't be falsified[1]. It's possible to find out his height[2], therefore there is only one truth, and other "truths" would turn out to be false. ------- The paper you supplied shows social capital helps with the arbitration committee and talks about some inner circle of people who coordinate. You're right, this does prove your point and I did assume that you were talking about the more common current use of politics. I was too focused on the "facts" part of our discussion and read too quickly. That's my fault.

detrites 3y ago

Agree with everything except "nearly everybody understands". In my experience most people have absolutely no clue, to the point a large chunk of society, if you asked them who writes the content, will answer "wikipedia does!".

komali2 3y ago

Interesting analysis, but almost entirely unsupported. Can you back this up? Let me counter, as someone that's edited wikipedia articles: I have no interest in having power over other people. In fact I actively work against hierarchical power structures, which I find inherently unethical. Many others I've met in the weird niche community of hackers and wikipedia editors share these values. I edit wikipedia articles for a variety of reasons. Off the top of my head: something written was factually incorrect (a date off, a mandarin word mistranslated, etc) and I feel an obsessive desire to make the documentation correct; there was no information on a subject I care about and so I wrote some because I really like documentation; the article on a band hadn't been updated to include their new album so I added it because I like the band and I want to make sure people know about the new album; the article wasn't written clearly enough and I worried about non native english speakers who find it and might misunderstand what was written. I really don't understand either how editing a wikipedia article gives you power over someone. They can just edit it back, or ignore the article. Edit: Thinking on it, I edit wikipedia articles maybe for the same reason I have a freesound.org account I upload my audio recordings to: I just really like having an internet full of useful and interesting stuff for people and contributing to that.

AmericanChopper 3y ago
It's quite hard to take this comment in good faith, because the politics of wikipedia community of power editors is well documented and criticised. But since you've decided that out of all the comments in this thread, that my one somehow demands more robust empirical scrutiny, here's an empirical study for your reference [0]. > I really don't understand either how editing a wikipedia article gives you power over someone It is impossible for me to take this comment at face value. I don't believe that it is not immediately obvious to you how exerting editorial control over the 7th most visited site on the internet, a site that is aiming to represent "the sum of all human knowledge", represents a significant source of power to influence society. It's great that you've enjoyed the process of contributing minor edits, and content to niche fields. But you can't ignore the fact that a majority of the content comes from a tiny minority of the userbase, and that their motives demonstrably resolve around a desire to control information in many cases. [0]: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:4228b090-8900-4a29-baa3-660300cdd283/download_file?file_format=application%2Fpdf&safe_filename=Grisel_2023_Cancelling_disputes_how.pdf&type_of_work=Journal+article https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:4228b090-8900-4a29-baa3-66... > Based on empirical data drawn from a series of interviews and an exhaustive analysis of its cases between 2004 and 2020, this paper examines the ways in which the Arbitration Committee handles conduct-related disputes between editors, and the impact of social capital, summarily defined as the “capital captured through social relations” (Lin 2001, 19), on this process. My empirical material indicates that the Arbitration Committee not only examines the merits of the claims made by the disputants, but also and more crucially facilitates a social contest by considering the position of each disputant within the community of editors. Ultimately, the Arbitration Committee seeks to “cancel” these disputes in order to preserve Wikipedia’s social fabric.

bawolff 3y ago

> It creates a system for people to promote their own views as the truth As long as the different groups are on equal footing and there is a fair way to resolve disputes, the invisible hand should guide the article to something fair. I think this has been borne out in practise for the most part.

AmericanChopper 3y ago
This view is far too simplistic, and I’m not talking about binary political divisions at all. The point is that the process for resolving content controversies is a political process, as in they are resolved according to (or at least influenced by) the status of the disputing parties within the social hierarchy of Wikipedia editors. There is no “invisible hand” to guide fairness here, and the potential topics of controversy don’t exist along some sort of binary paradigm of potentially opposing views. I also have no idea why you would presume that any controversial topic (let alone all or most of them) would have opposing advocates on equal footing with each other.
DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
> I think this has been borne out in practise for the most part. That very much depends on the subject matter. Subjects that are at all politically or socially controversial are very likely to be under the control of one or the other side. If it's a "boring" subject that lots of people are interested in, then the page will probably be fairly balanced.

pphysch 3y ago

This has a lot to do with Wikipedia being designed by a couple of Objectivists. They believe there is one reality that can only be correctly perceived in one way, by Rational Individuals. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia for that worldview, and it excels where there is little disagreement between worldviews. A better Wikipedia would have epistemological relativity as a central mechanic, while simultaneously relaxing the rules on acceptable sources. Implementing that in a way that doesn't compromise UX would be difficult, but it's a technical problem more than anything.